Agrarian Justice

Thomas Paine

[1795-96 / Part 1]

In this work, his last great
pamphlet published in the winter of 1795-1796, Paine continued
the discussion he began in Part II of the Rights of Man of the
problem of the elimination of poverty and developed further his
proposals for limiting the accumulation of property. The crux of
the entire question of eliminating poverty, he points out, lay
in the institution of private property, for this principle was
the source of the evils of society. Landed property and private
property, he argued, were made possible only by the operation of
society since whatever property men accumulated beyond their own
labor came from the fact that they lived in society. "...
The accumulation of personal property," he wrote, "is,
in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor
that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working
hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence."
God had never opened a land office, he held, from which
perpetual deeds to the earth should be issued. He spoke, he
boldly declared, for "all those who hive been thrown out of
their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of
landed property." It is of some interest to note that
Thomas Jefferson observed, in a letter to Rev. James Madison in
February, 1787: "Whenever there are in a country
uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the
laws of property have been so far extended as to violate the
natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to
labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow
it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment
be provided for those excluded from the appropriation. If we do
not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the
unemployed...," [Philip S. Foner, ed., Thomas Jefferson:
Selections from His Writings, pp. 56-57.]

Since the operation of society had made possible the existence
of private property, it followed that society was entitled to
receive the surplus that men accumulated beyond their own labor back
from them. Paine proposed a plan to deal with the problem of poverty
by providing for the taxation of accumulated property to permit the
state to give each man and woman reaching the age of twenty-one the
sum of or fifteen pounds, and every person fifty years of age or
over ten pounds per year. His plan, which today would be called a
system of 'social insurance, called for graduated inheritance taxes
and ground rents.

Unlike many land reformers who preceded and followed him,
Paine did not advocate the establishment of an agrarian society. For
evidence that Paine's proposal was too moderate for some
contemporary Agrarians, see Thomas Spence's pamphlet published in
1797, The Rights of Infants, with Scriptures on Paine's Agrarian
Justice. -- Editor.

Author's Inscription

To the Legislature and the Executive Directory of the French
Republic

The plan contained in this work is not adapted for any particular
country alone: the principle on which it is based is general. But as
the rights of man are a new study in this world, and one needing
protection from priestly imposture, and the insolence of oppressions
too long established, I have thought it right to place this little
work under your safeguard.

When we reflect on the long and dense night in this which France
and all Europe have remained plunged by their governments and their
priests, we must feel less surprise than grief at the bewilderment
caused by the first burst of light that dispels the darkness. The
eye accustomed to darkness can hardly bear at first the broad
daylight. It is by usage the eye learns to see, and it is the same
in this passing from any situation to its opposite.

As we have not at one instant renounced all our errors, we cannot
at one stroke acquire knowledge of all our rights. France has had
the honor of adding to the word Liberty that of Equality; and this
word signifies essentially a principle that admits of no gradation
in this the things to which it applies. But equality is often
misunderstood, often misapplied, and often violated.

Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our
possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two
kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to
us from the Creator of the universe -- such as the earth, air,
water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property -- the invention or
men.

In this the latter, equality is impossible; for to distribute it
equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in
this the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this
being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property,
as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of
this little essay. Every individual in this the world is born
therein with legitimate claims on a certain kind of property, or its
equivalent.

The right of voting for persons charged with the execution of the
laws that govern society is inherent in this the word liberty, and
constitutes the equality of personal rights. But even if that right
(of voting) were inherent in this property, which I deny, the right
of suffrage would still belong to all equally, because, as I have
said, all individuals have legitimate birthrights in a certain
species of property.

I have always considered the present Constitution of the French
Republic the best organized system the human mind has yet produced.
But I hope my former colleagues will not be offended if I warn them
of an error which has slipped into its principle. Equality of the
right of suffrage is not maintained. This right is in it connected
with a condition on which it ought not to depend; that is, with a
proportion of a certain tax called "direct."

The dignity of suffrage is thus lowered; and, in placing it in the
scale with an inferior thing, the enthusiasm that right is capable
of inspiring is diminished. It is impossible to find any equivalent
counterpoise for the right of suffrage, because it is alone worthy
to be its own basis, and cannot thrive as a graft, or an appendage.

Since the Constitution was established we have seen two
conspiracies stranded -- that of Babeuf," and that of some
obscure personages who decorate themselves with the despicable name
of "royalists." The defect in principle of the
Constitution was the origin of Babeuf's conspiracy.

He availed himself of the resentment caused by this flaw, and
instead of seeking a remedy by legitimate and constitutional means,
or proposing some measure useful to society, the conspirators did
their best to renew disorder and confusion, and constituted
themselves personally into a Directory, which is formally
destructive of election and representation. They were, in fine,
extravagant enough to suppose that society, occupied with its
domestic affairs, would blindly yield to them a dictatorship usurped
by violence.

The conspiracy of Babeuf was followed in a few months by that of
the royalists, who foolishly flattered themselves with the notion of
doing great things by feeble or foul means. They counted on all the
discontented, from whatever cause, and tried to rouse, in their
turn, the class of people who had been following the others. But
these new chiefs acted as if they thought society had nothing more
at heart than to maintain courtiers, pensioners, and all their
train, under the contemptible title of royalty. My little essay will
disabuse them, by showing that society is aiming at a very different
end -- maintaining itself.

We all know or should know, that the time during which a
revolution is proceeding is not the time when its resulting
advantages can he enjoyed. But had Babeuf and his accomplices taken
into consideration the condition of France under this Constitution,
and compared it with what it was under the tragical revolutionary
government, and during the execrable Reign of Terror, the rapidity
of the alteration must have appeared to them very striking and
astonishing. Famine has been replaced by abundance, and by the
well-founded hope of a near and increasing prosperity.

As for the defect in the Constitution. I am fully convinced that
it will be rectified constitutionally, and that this step is
indispensable; for so long as it continues it will inspire the hopes
and furnish the means of conspirators; and for the rest, it is
regrettable that a Constitution so wisely organized should err so
much in its principle. This fault exposes it to other dangers which
will make themselves felt.

Intriguing candidates will go about among those who have not the
means to pay the direct tax and pay it for them, on condition of
receiving their votes. Let us maintain inviolably equality in the
sacred right of suffrage: public security can never have a basis
more solid. Salut et Fraternite. Your former colleague, Thomas
Paine.

Author's English Preface

The following little piece was written in the winter of 1795 and
1796; and, as I had not determined whether to publish it during the
present war, or to wait till the commencement of peace, it has lain
by me, without alteration or addition, from the time it was written.

What has determined me to publish it now is a sermon preached by
Watson. Bishop or Llandaff. Some of my readers will recollect, that
this Bishop wrote a book entitled "An Apology for the Bible,"
in answer to my second part of "The Age of Reason," I
procured a copy of his book, and he may depend upon hearing from me
on that subject.

At the end of the Bishop's book is a list of the works he has
written. Among which is the sermon alluded to; it is entitled: "The
Wisdom and Goodness of God, in having made both Rich and Poor; with
an Appendix containing Reflections on the Present State of England
and France."

The error contained in this sermon determined me to publish my "Agrarian
Justice." It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He made
only male and female; and He gave them the earth for their
inheritance. ...

Instead of preaching to encourage one part of mankind in insolence
... it would be better that priests employed their time to render
the general condition of man less miserable than it is. Practical
religion consists in doing good: and the only way of serving God is
that of endeavoring to make His creation happy. All preaching that
has not this for its object is nonsense and hypocrisy.